New research shows that when people need help getting a job done, they’ll choose a congenial colleague over a more capable one. That has big implications for every organization—and not all of them are negative.

Business processes—from making a mousetrap to hiring a CEO—are being analyzed, standardized, and quality checked. That work, as it progresses, will lead to commoditization and outsourcing on a massive scale.

HBR Spotlight

Fast-growing economies often provide poor soil for profits. The cause? A lack of specialized intermediary firms and regulatory systems on which multinational companies depend. Successful businesses look for those institutional voids and work around them.

Feature

When people are your most important asset, some standard performance measures and management practices become misleading or irrelevant. This is a danger for any business whose people costs are greater than its capital costs—that is, businesses in most industries. But it is particularly true for what the authors call “people businesses”: operations with high employee costs, low capital investment, and limited spending on activities, such as R&D, that are aimed at generating future revenue.

If you run a people business—or a company that includes one or more of them—how do you measure its true performance? Avoid the trap of relying on capital-oriented metrics, such as return on assets and return on equity. They won’t help much, as they’ll tend to mask weak performance or indicate volatility where it doesn’t exist. Replace them with financially rigorous people-oriented metrics—for example, a reformulation of a conventional calculation of economic profit, such as EVA, so that you gauge people, rather than capital, productivity.

Once you have assessed the business’s true performance, you need to enhance it operationally (be aware that relatively small changes in productivity can have a major impact on shareholder returns); reward it appropriately (push performance-related variable compensation schemes down into the organization); and price it advantageously (because economies of scale and experience tend to be less significant in people businesses, price products or services in ways that capture a share of the additional value created for customers).

When looking for help with a task at work, people turn to those best able to do the job. Right? Wrong. New research shows that work partners tend to be chosen not for ability but for likability.

Drawing from their study encompassing 10,000 work relationships in five organizations, the authors have classified work partners into four archetypes: the competent jerk, who knows a lot but is unpleasant; the lovable fool, who doesn’t know much but is a delight; the lovable star, who’s both smart and likable; and the incompetent jerk, who…well, that’s self-explanatory.

Of course, everybody wants to work with the lovable star, and nobody wants to work with the incompetent jerk. More interesting is that people prefer the lovable fool over the competent jerk. That has big implications for every organization, as both of these types often represent missed opportunities.

Because they are liked by a disproportionate number of people, lovable fools can bridge gaps between diverse groups that might not otherwise interact. But their networking skills are often developed at the expense of job performance, which can make these employees underappreciated and vulnerable to downsizing. To get the most out of them, managers need to protect them and put them in positions that don’t waste their bridge-building talents.

As for the competent jerks, too often their expertise goes untapped by people who just can’t put up with them. But many can be socialized through coaching or by being made accountable for bad behavior. Others may need to display their competence in more isolated settings.

Intriguingly, managers aren’t limited to leveraging people that others like and changing those that others loathe. They also can create situations in which people are more apt to like one another, whatever their individual qualities.

Despite the much-ballyhooed increase in outsourcing, most companies are in do-it-yourself mode for the bulk of their processes, in large part because there’s no way to compare outside organizations’ capabilities with those of internal functions. Given the lack of comparability, it’s almost surprising that anyone outsources today. But it’s not surprising that cost is by far companies’ primary criterion for evaluating outsourcers or that many companies are dissatisfied with their outsourcing relationships.

A new world is coming, says the author, and it will lead to dramatic changes in the shape and structure of corporations. A broad set of process standards will soon make it easy to determine whether a business capability can be improved by outsourcing it. Such standards will also help businesses compare service providers and evaluate the costs versus the benefits of outsourcing. Eventually these costs and benefits will be so visible to buyers that outsourced processes will become a commodity, and prices will drop significantly. The low costs and low risk of outsourcing will accelerate the flow of jobs offshore, force companies to reassess their strategies, and change the basis of competition.

The speed with which some businesses have already adopted process standards suggests that many previously unscrutinized areas are ripe for change. In the field of technology, for instance, the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute has developed a global standard for software development processes, called the Capability Maturity Model (CMM).

For companies that don’t have process standards in place, it makes sense for them to create standards by working with customers, competitors, software providers, businesses that processes may be outsourced to, and objective researchers and standard-setters. Setting standards is likely to lead to the improvement of both internal and outsourced processes.

Oil and energy corporation BP was well aware of the importance of its work group managers on the front lines. Their decisions, in aggregate, make an enormous difference in BP’s turnover, costs, quality control, safety, innovation, and environmental performance. There were about 10,000 such supervisors, working in every part of the company—from solar plants in Spain, to drilling platforms in the North Sea, to marketing teams in Chicago. Some 70% to 80% of BP employees reported directly to these lower-level managers. Yet, until recently, the corporation didn’t have a comprehensive training program—let alone an official name—for them. For their part, the frontline managers felt disconnected; it was often hard for them to understand how their individual decisions contributed to the growth and reputation of BP as a whole.

In this article, BP executive Andreas Priestland and Dialogos VP Robert Hanig describe how BP in the past five years has learned to connect with this population of managers. After one and a half years of design and development, there is now a companywide name—“first-level leaders”—and a comprehensive training program for this cohort. The authors describe the collaborative effort they led to create the program’s four components: Supervisory Essentials, Context and Connections, the Leadership Event, and Peer Partnerships. The design team surveyed those it had deemed first-level leaders and others throughout BP; extensively benchmarked other companies’ training efforts for lower-level managers; and conducted a series of pilot programs that involved dozens of advisers.

The training sessions were first offered early in 2002, and since then, more than 8,000 of BP’s first-level leaders have attended. The managers who’ve been through training are consistently ranked higher in performance than those who haven’t, both by their bosses and by the employees who report to them, the authors say.

Surveys indicate that when new rules on expensing stock options take effect, many companies are likely to limit the number of employees who can receive equity compensation. But companies that reserve equity for executives are bound to suffer in the long run. Study after study proves that broad-based ownership, when done right, leads to higher productivity, lower workforce turnover, better recruits, and bigger profits.

“Done right” is the key. Here are the four most important factors in implementing a broad-based employee equity plan: A significant portion of the workforce—generally, most of the full-time people—must hold equity; employees must think the amounts they hold can significantly improve their financial prospects; managerial practices and policies must reinforce the plan; and employees must feel a true sense of company ownership. Those factors add up to an ownership culture in which employees’ interests are aligned with the company’s. The result is a workforce that is loyal, cooperative, and willing to go above and beyond to make the organization successful.

A wide variety of companies have recorded exceptional business performance with the help of employee-ownership programs supported by management policies. The authors examine two: Science Applications International, a research and development contractor, and Scot Forge, which shapes metal and other materials for industrial machinery. At both companies, every employee with a year or so of service holds equity, and employees who stay on can accumulate a comfortable nest egg. Management’s sharing of financial information reinforces workers’ sense of ownership. So does the expectation that employees will accept the responsibilities of ownership. Workers with an ownership stake internalize their responsibilities and feel they have an obligation not only to management but to one another.

To make legitimate and effective use of vote buying, managers should act with the company’s best interests in mind, say Luh Luh Lan at the National University of Singapore and Loizos Heracleous at Oxford.

HBR Case Study

CEO Peter Walsh faces a classic innovator’s dilemma. His company, Crescordia, produces high-quality metal plates, pins, and screws that orthopedic surgeons use to repair broken bones. In fact, because the company has for decades refused to compromise on quality, there are orthopedic surgeons who use nothing but Crescordia hardware. And now these customers have begun to clamor for the next generation technology: resorbable hardware.

Resorbables offer clear advantages over the traditional hardware. Like dissolving sutures, resorbable plates and screws are made of biodegradable polymers. They hold up long enough to support a healing bone, then gradually and harmlessly disintegrate in the patient’s body. Surgeons are especially looking forward to using resorbables on children, so kids won’t have to undergo a second operation to remove the old hardware after their bones heal, a common procedure in pediatrics. The new products, however, are not yet reliable; they fail about 8% of the time, sometimes disintegrating before the bone completely heals and sometimes not ever fully disintegrating. That’s why Crescordia, mindful of its hard-earned reputation, has delayed launching a line using the new technology.

But time is running out. A few competitors have begun to sell resorbables despite their imperfections, and these companies are picking up market share. Should Crescordia join the fray and risk tarnishing its brand? Or should the company sit tight until it can offer a perfect product?

Commenting on this fictional case study are Robert A. Lutz, vice chairman of product development at General Motors; Clayton M. Christensen, the Robert and Jane Cizik Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School; Jason Wittes, a senior equity analyst covering medical supplies and devices at Leerink Swann; and Nick Galakatos, a general partner of MPM Capital.

HBR Spotlight

With emerging markets like China and politically unstable countries like Saudi Arabia figuring more than ever into companies’ investment calculations, business leaders are turning to political risk analysis to measure the impact of politics on potential markets, minimize risks, and make the most of global opportunities. But political risk is more subjective than its economic counterpart. It is influenced by the passage of laws, the foibles of government leaders, and the rise of popular movements. So corporate leaders must grapple not just with broad, easily observable trends but also with nuances of society and even quirks of personality. And those hard-to-quantify factors must constantly be pieced together into an ongoing narrative within historical and regional contexts.

As goods, services, information, ideas, and people cross borders today with unprecedented velocity, corporations debating operational or infrastructural investments abroad increasingly need objective, rigorous assessments. One tool for measuring and presenting stability data, for example, incorporates 20 composite indicators of risk in emerging markets and scores risk variables according to both their structural and their temporal components. The indicators are then organized into four equally weighted subcategories whose ratings are aggregated into a single stability score. Countries are ranked on a scale of zero (a failed state) to 100 (a fully institutionalized, stable democracy).

Companies can buy political risk analyses from consultants or, as some large energy and financial services organizations have done, develop them in-house. Either way, a complete and accurate picture of any country’s risk requires analysts with strong reportorial skills; timely, accurate data on a variety of social and political trends; and a framework for evaluating the impact of individual risks on stability.

Best Practice

A 2004 McKinsey survey of more than 30 companies reveals that at least 70% of them have major alliances that are underperforming and in need of restructuring. Moreover, JVs that broaden or otherwise adjust their scope have a 79% success rate, versus 33% for ventures that remain essentially unchanged. Yet most firms don’t routinely evaluate the need to overhaul their alliances or intervene to correct performance problems. That means corporations are missing huge opportunities: By revamping just one large alliance, a company can generate $100 million to $300 million in extra income a year. Here’s how to unlock more value from alliances:

1. Launch the process. Don’t wait until your venture is in the middle of a crisis; regularly scan your major alliances to determine which need restructuring. Once you’ve targeted one, designate a restructuring team and find a senior sponsor to push the process along. Then delineate the scope of the team’s work.

2. Diagnose performance. Evaluate the venture on the following performance dimensions: ownership and financials, strategy, operations, governance, and organization and talent. Identify the root causes of the venture’s problems, not just the symptoms, and estimate how much each problem is costing the company.

3. Generate restructuring options. Based on the diagnosis, decide whether to fix, grow, or exit the alliance. Assuming the answer is fix or grow, determine whether fundamental or incremental changes are needed, using the five performance dimensions above as a framework. Then assemble three or four packages of restructuring options, test them with shareholders, and gain parents’ approval.

4. Execute the changes. Embark on a widespread and consistent communication effort, building support among executives in the JV and the parent companies. So the process stays on track, assign accountability to certain groups or individuals.

HBR Spotlight

It’s no easy task to identify strategies for entering new international markets or to decide which countries to do business with. Many firms simply go with what they know—and fall far short of their goals.

Part of the problem is that emerging markets have “institutional voids”: They lack specialized intermediaries, regulatory systems, and contract-enforcing methods. These gaps have made it difficult for multinationals to succeed in developing nations; thus, many companies have resisted investing there. That may be a mistake. If Western companies don’t come up with good strategies for engaging with emerging markets, they are unlikely to remain competitive.

Many firms choose their markets and strategies for the wrong reasons, relying on everything from senior managers’ gut feelings to the behaviors of rivals. Corporations also depend on composite indexes for help making decisions. But these analyses can be misleading; they don’t account for vital information about the soft infrastructures in developing nations. A better approach is to understand institutional variations between countries. The best way to do this, the authors have found, is by using the five contexts framework.

The five contexts are a country’s political and social systems, its degree of openness, its product markets, its labor markets, and its capital markets. By asking a series of questions that pertain to each of the five areas, executives can map the institutional contexts of any nation.

When companies match their strategies to each country’s contexts, they can take advantage of a location’s unique strengths. But first firms should weigh the benefits against the costs. If they find that the risks of adaptation are too great, they should try to change the contexts in which they operate or simply stay away.

Explore other issues

Partner Center

The email and password entered aren’t matching to our records. Please try again, or reset your password. If you have a username from our previous site, start by using that. Please See our FAQ for more.

If you are signing in for the first time on the new HBR.org but have an existing account, please enter your existing user name and password to migrate your account.Please see Frequently Asked Questions for more information.